the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Yeah I kinda left you in a difficult spot; try to say something clever, which would be hard to do with what I left you to work with (my bad), or say nothing at all and risk being mistaken for a dim-wit who can’t say something witty about a spider.

I think you did the right thing. The eight legs comment was good; you’re not trying to keep something going that’s difficult to work with. See now I would, and as per usual I would make a mess of it. That’s just me: if you look up the word ‘obnoxious’, there will be a picture of me in the left margin… right margin if you’re using a Chinese dictionary.

I’m from Brazil. They don’t call them brazillian waxes for nothing.

Oh, these are real, babe. But I think when I hit mid life crisis I’ll get a couple of double dees.

Don’t worry about it. I try to never say anything clever. People might start thinking I’m smart.

You can be obnoxious, and I can be noxious, and we can sing a duet. We may even get a few quarters in our hats.

Oh well, another thread bites the dust… :laughing: :astonished: :laughing:

I’ll fix it, toots. I haven’t replied to your post.

Gimme a few. Need a snack.

Static/dynamic reality

Static: reality is a static object that is uncovered by the individuals using perception. Reality does not change, it is our sensory organs that fool us into thinking that reality is changing.

Dynamic: reality is flux. Our sensory organs do not uncover reality, they freeze it. The less we freeze reality (i.e. the more we absorb chaos) the more accurate is our perception. The more accurate our perception, the more effective ways in which we can freeze reality.

Public/private reality

Public: reality contains us ( = we do not control reality, reality controls us.)
Private: we contain reality ( = reality does not control us, we control reality.)

Objective/subjective mentality

Being objective means judging from the totality of your senses.
Being objective means seeing the difference between what you want and what is.
Being objective means absorbing (but not becoming) chaos.

Being subjective means judging from the selection of your senses.
Being subjective means conflating what you want with what is.
Being subjective means freezing (i.e. denying) chaos (which is to say, becoming chaos.)

Being objective does not mean knowing the “objective truth”.
Being objective means perceiving reality (i.e. being flexible, absorbing chaos) to the best of your ability.

Objective reality, flux and solipsism

Objective reality: static + public reality.
Flux: dynamic + public reality.
Solipsism: private reality.

Logical solipsism: belief in the private reality.
Physiological solipsim: no belief in the private reality, but acting as if reality is private.

I am not aware of any logical solipsists. But there are plenty of physiological solipsists. Those who believe in objective reality, for example, are physiological solipsists.

External/internal reality

External reality: whatever is outside of our body.
Internal reality: whatever is inside of our body ( = our past.)

Chaos can be internal or external.
Mental subjectivity means denying any of the two types.

Well, think of it as if it was language. Language develops in a region of the world and is deeply tied to the culture and the people’s way of being. The farther you move from a point, the more difference in accents and vocabulary you will see until it’s not the same language anymore. However, if a foreigner moves into my land, I expect them to learn my language so that they can communicate with me, not the other way around. Also, languages are alive, they evolve and adapt. I can learn some interesting sounds and phrases from the foreigner if I have a use for them, and if some new phenomena appears, I’ll have to create new expressions to refer to it.

There is no such thing as a right language and a wrong language. But it is my language. In my land, I enforce it.
It is the preservation of a cultural value in it’s own land. The foreigner can call that an agenda and choose to fight it. He will be met with resistance.

How does that sound?

Why must all rational men behave the same? Is there ever only one solution to a problem?

I see what you mean, but why do you think think that there is anything particularly wrong with justifying one’s behaviors through reasoning, even if ultimately you are doing something simply because you want to?
With Satyr, I find that the problem is that at times what he says doesn’t match his behaviors, but I won’t speak in detail about that. That would be very indelicate.

Sure, toots.

Can you fucking believe it?!

If this isn’t a classic example of intellectual, abstractionist bullshit!

What in the world are you trying to say here? Hell, you can’t even give us examples from your own life, can you?

I can only conclude [giving you the benefit of the doubt] that you are just being ironic here. Your point in fact being to expose just how ineffectual this sort of didactic gibberish can be.

If not, then you’re a Kid, right? But then what is Satyr’s excuse? :-k

See, now this is the no longer iambiguous I have been yearning for. No qualifications can even be lurking in the background of this. No, possibly my cultural background and psychological make could be distorting my view of this rootlets to be detected. A clearly meant to be objective rejection of even the possible use of his post. You just materialized on the earth! You are now visible as you. A fallible human who exists and believes some things are true and some things are not and we do not need science (only) to determine all of the stuff in those sets. This is being down to earth. It is not down to earth to pretend to be a quasi human in some state of superposition. Welcome to the planet.

Hey, don’t you owe me about a billion rebuttals on the “discussing god and religion” thread? I’m sensing a pattern here… :-"

I have to be honest though: I really don’t have a fucking clue [this time] as to what in tarnation you are trying to convey here.

My point [re the OP] is not that individuals either are or are not fallible. Rather it is to suggest that in the absense of God [or your own pantheistic contraption] mere mortals [if they are being honest with themselves] are, like me, entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

But even here I fully acknowledge how this is necessarily embedded in the manner in which [b][u]I[/b][/u] have come to understand the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods.

And since interpreting them as I do precipitates a rather glum manner in which to construe conflicting human behaviors [and the nature of identity], I am always looking for an argument that might extricate me from that.

Just not yours. :wink:

Anyway, it is to escape the “agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” that the sacred and the secular objectivists invent their Gods and their “metaphysical” morality.

You got me. You are correct, you found it out, I’ve been lying to you all along, none of my posts are meant to make any sense whatsoever, I’ve been ironic all the time, it’s all lorem ispum bullshit, and don’t even ask what lorem ipsum is, cause noone knows. Now I’m gonna post another lorem ipsum, it would be lorem ipsum: the sequel, it won’t make any sense, cause there is no sense, so don’t freak out, be cool. With love.

Being objective, then, does not mean knowing “objective truth” or “absolute truth”, but making your best guess.

Your best guess is your best guess, not necessarily the best guess that exists in the universe, and certainly not the best possible guess that can be made.

People are different, they possess different information and they have different capacities.

Your best guess may be the same as someone else’s best guess, which means that the two of you have certain similarities. It can also be better than someone else’s guess, as well as worse.

The quality of guess has several dimensions.

The first, and the most important dimension, is the quality of guess in relation to one’s limits.

We are not free to see the world any way we like. We are limited creatures, and so we have a finite set of possible ways in which we can perceive reality.

You can make the best possible guess you can make, the best possible way you can perceive reality. This is mental health.

Or you can make a substandard guess, a guess which is below your capacities. This is mental illness.

The second dimension is temporal dimension. As we become stronger, our standards change, and so what we previously thought to be our best guess now becomes a substandard guess, revealing itself as a mistake.

The third, and final, dimension is the quality of guess in relation to what other people think.

Normally, we feel ashamed when we make, or realize that we have made, a substandard guess. But if we end up confusing what is substandard with what is up to standard, we can be made to feel ashamed for no reason whatsoever. This is what happens when people conflate their own limits with other people’s expectations.

A man can adopt unrealistic standard. Unrealistic standard is a standard which does not reflect one’s limits. One is expected to perform better than one can, to over-perform, or to perform worse than one can, to under-perform.

To be yourself, who you are, is to act to the best of your ability.
This is what it means to develop genetic identity.
This is what it means to be noble, to be a gentleman.

The other option, to not be who you are, is to under-perform or over-perform.
This is what it means to develop memetic identity.
This is what it means to be ignoble, to be a barbarian.

To under-perform is to act below your limits.
This is exaggerated humility/shame, or hyper-femininity.
Concealed, tamed barbarism.

To over-perform is to act above your limits.
This is exaggerated arrogance, or hyper-masculinity.
Open, untamed barbarism.

I was checking with my GP, asking them some questions about my supposed friend, if they could tell me what this might be about, and this is what I got:

ivyroses.com/Define/Logophobia

Have you ever went to school?

Ever studied math?

I can barely imagine your reaction to math . . .

Well, one thing no one would ever accuse you of is being afraid of words. But then that’s kinda my point, isn’t it? And the more abstract, the better.

As for math, that would seem to have little to do with the psychology of objectivism. After all, the laws of mathematics really are applicable to everyone, everywhere.

In other words, it’s not likely that someone [as dasein] will come to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, and then defend it by insisting that others who do not believe this are irrational or immoral.

Or imbeciles.

Are they? So why do people still argue over whether 0.999~ equals 1 or not?

Obviously you don’t read a lot of the posts in rant and science. :laughing:

I can still prove that 0.999… is not equal to 1.0. And Wiki still lists their proofs that it is.
No, math is not universally settled.

Yes, James, but what you can’t prove – what you absolutely refuse to prove – is what rational metaphysics has to do with conflicting moral and political value judgments. Which, by the way, is the focus of the OP.

Or are you actually ready to bring your “definitional logic” down to earth? :-k

No. The only thing that I refuse, is trying to teach mathematics to monkeys while I have better things to do.

Let’s not derail the thread, okay? Just say the word and I’ll start a new thread. We can pursue the relationship between mathematics and morality more…productively? Like old times!

There were no “productive old times” between us. I was merely keeping you distracted and occupied while other things were going on. You proved to be entirely disingenuous, so discussion beyond that wasn’t appropriate … much like now.